Exactly. The wind is going past your window at ~170 ft/sec. At .01 seconds after the ball leaves the window it is 1.7 feet downstream, undoubtedly past the target window. A ninety mile an hour fastball will travel about 1.2 feet in .01 seconds. Maybe if you get the cars 4" apart and can actually pitch a ninety mile an hour fastball while seated in a car you might make it. But realistically, I still say no way. And I wouldn't be surprised given the turbulence that a ball thrown out the passenger front window would end up in back seat if the passenger rear window is open. I know from experience that cigarette butts do at much more moderate speeds.
Getty is a recognised photographic (repeat photographic?) establishment, and without an agenda to engender. There's a clever play on words? But I'll admit it was a bad example; usually the tags are in the nature of 'artist's impression'. Incidentally read the Tweet underneath the pics . . . "Phew" - a hard day's 'work' in Mission Control, evidently, but he did it, so well done him, eh? Honestly, you seem to be quite intelligent so how can you not see through all this crap? Edit to add link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46632662
it's not really wind. the ball will slow down due to air resistance. Effectively the cars will be moving away from the ball as they have constant speed and the ball is decelerating. Taking your fast ball a 90mph slows down 10mph between the pitcher and the batter. The ball would not suddenly be traveling at 120mph away from the cars as it exits the car, they would have equal velocity and then the ball will decelerate due to air resistance.
Your right it wouldn't be suddenly traveling at 120mph. But that "air resistance" experienced by the ball is the force of Cat 5 hurricane. If you were to stick your arm out of the car in an attempt to place the ball in the other car the air resistance would rip the ball out of your hand.
It depends, if you stick your and out of the at 120mph it roughly the same as holding 4kg object, a baseball has a far lower drag coefficient and smaller surface area so it wouldn't nearly as much weight
There is no air in space, which is where this all came from. It was meant to give our little Cereraless something to contemplate.
Sure. But the way you framed the question is much more interesting and fails to illustrate the point you wanted to make about Galilean relativity.
Take a moment and consider who it was directed at before you stepped in. Think about trying to teach math to a three year old with cookies.
That’s what institutional science is for. Scientist are human beings like everyone else, like lawyers, etc. When part of an institution, there are fewer intrusions and more acceptable outcomes. That’s why you can find disagreement between two scientists from MIT but the consensus at MIT and the hundreds of scientist that back it, will be very reliable.
Not all of them. Some of them genuinely lack the intelligence to understand. Sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference, but never dismiss the possibility that some people are just not very bright.
....of course, I wouldn't be saying it about anyone on this thread. That would not be appropriate. Just a general observation.
The images start with a digital photograph. The image is then sent in digital form to NASA. At that point NASA reconstructs the image from the data. CGI is the creation of images by computer, not by camera.
Come on now, that's really scraping the bottom of the relativity barrel; shirley you can do better than that?
